Skip to main content
Glama

x402-services

by ai.firmbrain

lending_liquidations

Liquidation-opportunity scanner: at-risk Morpho Blue borrower positions (health factor < 1) that can be liquidated for a bonus, with borrower, market, debt and collateral in USD. Send { chain?, minDebtUsd?, limit? }. Live liquidatable positions for searcher/liquidator agents. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/lending/liquidations]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase (default) or ethereum
limitNoMax positions, default 10
minDebtUsdNoMinimum debt size in USD (default 100)

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pricing but lacks details on result format (e.g., empty results, real-time vs cached), though basic behavior is conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise and includes essential info (purpose, parameters, pricing), though slightly fragmented. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, output elements, optional parameters, and cost. Missing return format details but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names with defaults but adds no new semantic depth beyond the schema's descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's a liquidation-opportunity scanner for Morpho Blue borrower positions with health factor < 1, listing returned data (borrower, market, debt, collateral in USD). It distinguishes from siblings like lending_health and lending_rates by focusing specifically on liquidatable positions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Targets searcher/liquidator agents and mentions pricing. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for its niche use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All x402-services toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.

Tool Count2/5

With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.

Resources